The Death of SpaceTime & Birth of Conscious Agents, Donald Hoffman

[@antonystringfellow5152]

I must confess that I was not able to find a way to explain the atomistic character of nature. My opinion is that … one has to find a possibility to avoid the space-time continuum altogether. But I have not the slightest idea what kind of elementary concepts could be used in such a theory. - Albert Einstein (1954)

[@SimplifiedTruth]

“Hence it is clear that the space of physics is not, in the last analysis, anything given in nature or independent of human thought. It is a function of our conceptual scheme [mind]. -Albert Einstein

[@SunderBlue22]

Antony Stringfellow stop quoting Einstein. He left his wife and married his niece. He is garbage...

[@jamespoff8632]

(maby)) Albert was trying to find a physical explanation to a spiritual Quest? Albert was all about the physical.

[@PaulSebastianM]

Quotes without context to mislead.

[@jasonmcmurry1281]

@@PaulSebastianM do you feel misled? Or perhaps just out of context. Contrary to the mainstream consensus.....suicide IS sometimes the answer (but only when even drugs have let you down). It's not unrealistic to think that by Halloween you could be deep into the labrinth of addiction to NON-socially acceptable narcotics, and with just a tiny bit of motivation....stone dead, hanging in the basement with a string of christmas lights around your neck, just in time for JC's B-day!! That being the only logical outcome, I say why procrastinate???? Get after it man!!!! Jesus is waiting to tell you how badly we have all let him down and how he has given up the 'water walking' to pursue other endeavors. Like latenight strip club buffet/salad bar design using the most modern techniques of interrior decorating. I talking; strobe effect and disco ball- heat lamps!!!! Combination condom/condiment dispensers at every table 👍👍(cant be bad) And table cloths that say : if you can read this...the bitch fell off! A' la carte menu 'tramp stamped' on the waitress just above an ass that smells like stale beer, Purell hand sanitizer and the garbage can after mondays shrimp night! Get a lapdance while you chose an appetizer. Soup of the day will ALWAYS be the same leftover pot of bad Hormel chili w/ beans (with just a hint of cilantro and chlamydia) if anyone ever eats any, the music stops, the girls sit down and we all just watch them for the rest of the night. So get to it buster....we are all waiting on you to continue with the remainder of our lives/prison sentences. F.YI. the reason that monday is shrimp and clams night...so now when someone says "what is that fukin stench in this place?", the strippers can point to the buffet table....instead of each other. (still only 20% chance of being right, but every inch part of a mile, right??!!)

[@ionichi]

I'm an old acid-head and I approve of this message.

[@plasmoidsound1111]

George Smiley 😊 🤩☀️🌞🏄😜

[@jasonmcmurry1281]

Im an old acid-head and I approve of....the neighbors kid that helps me carry my groceries home from the library....or pumps my gas at McDonald's. I DO NOT approve of the relentless effort by the governments clandestine alphabet agencies to prevent congress from mandating- oreo cookies, swiss miss coco and king-sized tootsie rolls- being officially recognized as our 'national stew'. This shit ends NOW! Common' man......who's coming with me??!!??

[@anythingbutmyrealname]

Same here bro

[@anythingbutmyrealname]

@@jasonmcmurry1281 You might've taken too much bud

[@btht1723]

George Smiley 😂✌️

[@Iam-od2nc]

"Intersubjective agreement does not mean objective truth." Eureka! on point

[@jennyhenley4130]

Does this speaker assume/believe that objective truth/reality does exist? Or does he only use the terms (objective truth/reality) in order to show how his theory is different than traditional space time theory? If we don't see reality "as it truly is", then how can we assume or prove that objective reality exists. Maybe our perceptional systems (that exist in order to forage for fitness) are our true reality. Maybe the concept "objective" does not exist at all. There is only "shared reality" or "agreed upon" reality, and our "individual" reality. And these realities only exist when we are observing the reality or when we are remembering the past shared/agreed upon reality.

[@flatstuff1630]

The truth has nothing to do with how many people believe it.

[@autopilot3176]

@I am -> Are you sure that "You are", Mr. "I am"? What if your interface is buggy? What if "You were once" or "You will be maybe"? What if something deep beneath is just playing with your data? How can you know what is real?

[@realSAPERE_AUDE]

@jenny henley: I’ve read his book and listened to a lot of his talks. Based on what I’ve heard, I do believe Hoffman believes there is an objective reality but what we perceive with our senses is not what objective reality is. What we see as real is just a structure of shorthand fitness payoff representations that doesn’t represent what the fundamental reality actually is.

[@mehedihasan-ui6qt]

@@danrayson wow mind blowing indeed😮

[@antonystringfellow5152]

This and the collapsing of a wave function by observation reminds me a lot of Buddhism. In Buddhism, things only exist as a result of conscious interaction with the Universe. "When people asked Buddha what he was teaching, he said he teaches "the way things are." He said nobody should believe his teachings out of faith, but instead they should examine for themselves to see if they are true or not. "

[@AndyJarman]

Taoism has a lot of similarities to this too. Not surprising when you look at average IQ distribution on a world map.

[@LiMitZplus]

Collapsing of a wave function isn’t from a conscious being tho. It’s the detector that must receive information and to do that it interferes with the wave properties

[@osheadkkm]

@@LiMitZplus not until the consciousness examines the detectors results can the wave function be said to have collapsed. It leads to all sorts of interesting concepts; like Retrospective Causality & Co.

[@greymanBB]

Vedas and Upanishads are pretty much about the same thing. Precedes Buddhism.

[@IntegralMind]

What I find most interesting is the fact that consciousness can and does come to know itself in a way beyond concepts, in a direct and undeniable way that slips down from concepts into simply the experience of being prior to concepts or thoughts or mental reflections on the reality of being. And that in this simple being, the essence of all that is is known. This understanding of the Universal nature of reality, of one’s ultimate and essential Self being the totality, being all beings, being the one consciousness peering out from all sets of eyeballs from all beings throughout all space and time, of being the very life force that powers all life forms, is pretty cool, to say the least.

[@IntegralMind]

@P-Nut Buttah also, burning women at the stake was a myth

[@IntegralMind]

@P-Nut Buttah vegetarians never have bigger fish to fry

[@giulia2737]

I'm assuming you paid attention to the video so see if you can help me with this: So, he argues that spacetime has no casual power (as it is only an interface that hides deeper data, having it no connection to the truth whatsoever) and therefore our brain and its activity cannot be the cause of our consciousness. That being said, where does our consciousness come from? He claims that conscious agents are the source of everything we take for reality (its physical construction being merely a practical representation of an error correcting code for fitness; thus basing his theory on survival and reproduction being the very purpose of our existence), including our own perception of consciousness. He defines a conscious agent as the relationship between experience, actions, and the world; according to him, agents of those would interact with eachother to create a network which is fundamentally what reality consists of and therefore the originator of every object including our brain. Now, knowing that consciousness doesn't come from unsentient matter, but, instead, from conscious agents, there are two questions I have in mind. Number one: what would be fundamentally necessary for the creation of a conscious agent? And number two (which is a little more philosophical): why do conscious agents and consciousness itself work within the principles of evolution?

[@ShubhamBhardwajMintwala]

Upanishads, which contain some of the highest spiritual flights of Hinduism, sum all of this up in seven neat lines. 1) 'Brahma satyam jagat mithya'- The world that a being perceives is false, the universal spirit is true. 2) 'Ekam eva advitiyam brahma'- The universal spirit is indivisibly one, without a second. 3) 'Prajnaanam brahma'- Knowledge of the infinite shines the universal spirit forth 4) 'Tat tvam asi'- That Thou Art 5) 'Ayam atma brahma'- The personal self is the impersonal universal spirit 6) 'Aham brahmasmi'- I am the universal spirit 7) 'Sarvamidam khalu brahma'- All of this is the universal spirit, without a doubt.

[@pedrozaragoza2253]

Shubham Bhardwaj you truly know what you are talking about. Amazing that people think science is so advanced when what they are beginning to think about has been shown to us for thousands of years. Great job!

[@justappearances]

Yep the mind is learning what the heart already knows

[@kimrunic5874]

'Upanishads...sum all of this up in seven neat lines.' How does that help us? So the ancients intuited what the scientific community is now uncovering in a testable way. Go figure. Which would you say is the more useful? The conclusion you quote is that 'All of this is universal spirit'. So what's that? Mysticism without intellectual rigour is of no use when it comes to establishing the truth, as Hoffman would be the first to tell you.

[@Johnnyredtail]

Since Brahman has no attributes it would be impossible to produce anything tangible with regard to It's character. If you were to disprove Hoffman's hypothesis, which he wholeheartedly invites by the way, who then is doing the disproving? What Shubam is saying goes way beyond the phenomenal world and therefore, by nature, can only be mystical. That does not necessarily mean false. The best Hoffman can hope to prove is that there is a finger pointing at something we know not what and can never know via the physical sciences.

[@kimrunic5874]

I profoundly disagree. I think that 'Brahman' as you call it and it's character (if you can call it that) relevance and meaning can be completely understood and revealed. I agree not by science as it is currently practiced but by a developed scientific endeavour. If Brahman is unknowable as you imply then you cannot assert it has no attributes.

[@raisingconsciousness777]

This is also what A Course in Miracles teaches - There is no causality in this material world. Our body does not cause anything to happen, even though we treat it as such. All starts and happens in Mind.

[@brucegelman5582]

Reality is not behind a veil. It is the veil.

[@lunalima7864]

Stfu

[@kostar500]

If u mean “space time based reality” i agree. There must be more fundamental systems running...

[@timishere1925]

@@lunalima7864 You need a good F'ing.

[@greengorilla]

@@timishere1925 lol

[@andrewbrown6307]

@@lunalima7864 fu

[@PhysicalMath]

I will definitely buy Don's book in 2019. He's got some actual evidence for what he claims, unlike the vast majority of people doing consciousness research.

[@jacquelinestigman6432]

Read Russell Targ, a physicist who ran studies re seeing at a distance, out of body experiences, psychic experiences research done for CIA and others.

[@kerryburns6041]

This is in sync with much of the esoteric literature I've read over the last 40 years, and even the respected Max Planck said he had come to see matter as derivative of consciousness. Kant was also very clear on the phenomenon and the noumenon ... all this many years ago. Science is subject to fashion at the expense of progress, which as it's been said, advances one funeral at a time.

[@mrsbethaniesmith]

Dang that last line was savage

[@olsim1730]

​@@mrsbethaniesmithor, civilized 😅

[@justappearances]

Brilliant! But why cut the Q&A part? Those are very interesting sometimes

[@ildisiri]

the crowd seem very "alive", there were probably some interesting questions asked.

[@fidziek]

@@ildisiri :-) yes, I think it's the reason why it's been cut

[@hit3894]

Because it has no fitness value

[@ildisiri]

@@fidziek I don't get it. Why would they cut such an interesting part?

[@themcfaceman]

I concur

[@thehark6247]

i have bent the spoon a couple of times. I had a 52 inch vertical leap, and a fatal head injury, got ran over by a car, and survived an aircraft crash, and three emergency landings , one, on an active 2 lane highway between two rows of oak trees and two sets of power lines, between a black honda pilot, driven by an overweight blonde woman who not only didnt swerve an inch to the right or apply the brakes,but i believe she accelerated head on as if i wasnt looking her dead in the eyes through her windshield, and a grain truck doin 60 mph behind me, i watched the time warp and even had time to remark to myself , wow this is amazing how slow the world around me is going, thanking jesus the whole time because that was instinctively who i was cryin out to in my flight of death.

[@rochellebroglen4155]

If this resonates with you and you'd like to know more, Robert Lanza's theory of Biocentrism is worthy of looking at too.

[@caspermilquetoast411]

Biocentrism, the perceptions of the life centered universe, is true.

[@howardhill3395]

If you're "foraging for fitness to reproduce" that's the survivalist point of view. It is a tense kind of rushing & grabbing with the eyes. It is a fight for survival against "the other". On the other hand, If you relax with what is, realizing we are all one, you then see and appreciate the whole and the detail. That is the more fully conscious or Zen way to see. We then become "conscious agents" & evolution accelerates.

[@wingsofsapphire3913]

Howard Hill I’m definitely leaning toward that idea myself. It makes more sense to me.

[@mozellagi]

But the same is true with consciousness. "Grabbing" Zen, "Claiming" calm is just another commodity to conquer.

[@zentex8877]

I’ve already reproduced, so I guess I can relax and just survive for the fun of it. Glad I saved for my retirement!

[@Schrodingercat1]

Cellular division as a vehicle to store and express more and more information. As the volume decreases the information storage increases...the nothing/everything...data compressed to the smallest mass...exploding into manifestation...big bang? This talk blew me away. Again, left in awe. Felling the truth of it...much thanks, Donald.

[@filmjazz]

Schrodingercat1 cellular division reduces the survival burden for each individual cell, allowing cells to specialize. When groups of specialized cells work together, we get complex multicellular organisms that are far more intelligent than individual cells. Now imagine that individual humans are cells ;)

[@degautaborg]

I have been teaching visual art and used to lecture about visual perception, aided by Rudolf Arnheims textbook on the subject. But this is far more universal and far-reaching! We hindoos and buddhists have known about the fact that sensory percetion is an illusion, maya, for thousands of years! Very clear logic in this lecture, which actually makes a synthesis of psychology, religion and physics! Stunning!

[@charlesgodwin2191]

We don't experience what happens, we experience our interpretation of what happened. We experience whatever we are convinced of. Interpretations that enlighten and empower us are therefore, preferable.

[@andrewwelsh131]

Very Stoic of you...... Wonder what the great stoics would think of all this 🤔

[@TonOfHam]

"Objects are a solution to the data representation problem" wow

[@lunalima7864]

There is no "data representation problem " this idiot is making this up, no one ever takes his idiot premises seriously.

[@JBSCORNERL8]

Luna Lima no one took Einstein’s theory seriously at first either. Just because a concept is too radical and bizarre to you, doesn’t mean it isn’t valid. Science is constantly changing

[@TonOfHam]

@@lunalima7864 There is no spoon either.

[@trubador09]

And have nothing to do with truth

[@TonOfHam]

@@trubador09 Truth, lol, Good luck sir.

[@arshagra]

"Beware of your interface with reality; your perceptions are at risk of deconstructing the ideal of love, compassion, peace, and the benevolence of your being." ~ C.C. Arshagra

[@williamreynolds6586]

This is amazing I'm going to check this cc arshagra person. This struck me because I have seen that power first hand. We all literally create who we are consciously or subconsciously we are attemping to destroy what we don't like about ourselves, things that don't fit with our ideas of life,right n wrong or honor,self respect and responsibility.We also create and build on those things we deem worthy for whatever reason. Its terrifying to think that I truly do have the power to create a dangerous monster thats void of all things good......or a misguided soul pursuing it's own ideas of what he must do......or just scared. We all have the power to create and destroy the pple we are. We make ourselves monsters or saints. That power is in our hands and we can see clearly by looking at the state of man and its history, that we can get it very very wrong. Least we become the monsters we must educate ourselves and live with compassion and honesty while being aware and critical of our heading. I struggle tremendously with wat I feel vs wat is right but ultimately it's my choice wat I do.

[@grahaminglis4242]

@@williamreynolds6586 The question posed at the end of your comments is what’s critical, but what is answering the question? Is it the personal information, the collective information or is it the result of psychological conditioning? Methinks it’s the conditioning because the personal draws from the collective and the collective is only the sum of the separate forms so they are both similar contextually. On the other hand, we are all caught in the conditioned that has accumulated over time, but that is still not representative of truth as truth is not fixed so it can never be known for it is ever changing.

[@cliffhregis]

Great presentation and good points. IMHO, "Error" is not in the stuff but whether our intentions match our reality. Nature is trying to determine what we want or need. Therefore, it's important to know what we want and align our thoughts, emotions and actions. Peace, love and abundance to all

[@misterx6276]

This guy is wise. A brilliant man once said "Reality is merely a shared series of delusions."

[@Clydesirota]

Hey Plato said that dude!

[@olsim1730]

​@@ClydesirotaPlato was indubitably wise 😊

[@giulia2737]

Anyone who's reading see if you can help me with this: So, he argues that spacetime has no casual power (as it is only an interface that hides deeper data, having it no connection to the truth whatsoever), and therefore our brain and its activity cannot be the cause of our consciousness. That being said, where does our consciousness come from? He suggests that conscious agents are the source of everything we take for reality (its physical construction being merely a practical representation of an error correcting code for fitness; thus basing his theory on survival and reproduction being the very purpose of our existence), including our own perception of consciousness. He defines a conscious agent as the relationship between experience, actions, and the world; according to him, agents of those would interact with eachother to create a network which is fundamentally what reality consists of and therefore the originator of every object including our brain. Now, knowing that consciousness doesn't come from unsentient matter, but, instead, from conscious agents, there are two questions I have in mind. Number one: what would be fundamentally necessary for the creation of a conscious agent? And number two (which is a little more philosophical): why do conscious agents and consciousness itself work within the principles of evolution?

[@crabsynth8761]

I like Donald's use of the Desktop-metaphor... As a programmer and someone who grew up with movies like the Matrix, I think it is Fantastic that we are having this Conversation in a Scientific & Academic Setting, quite Cool indeed ! and brings Great Insight about how to think of Systems, Software and the End-user.... i had seen the other optical illusions but the Flashing Images at 9:00 were very humbling haha...especially because of where the Change was located :P PS: Damn... Matrix Quotes & Hamming Code... this is a Great Lecture... and Donald is an excellent Communicator.

[@NarenLumpkin]

Consciousness alone exists alongside consciousness thereof. ❤❤❤

[@robertpierce4069]

It's some years since I last read chapter one of Immanuel Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason',; thanks for the refresher.

[@ogezpb3927]

i was just thinking the same thing. einstein credits kant for inspiring some of his own ideas so i tried to read kant and well i just kant! makes me wonder how kant got the idea tho....

[@465marko]

Pun Police. Everything seems to be in order here, carry on.

[@Mandibil]

One of the most interesting talks I have heard in a long time

[@KathyKirk]

You speak of physical evolution - what about the evolution of consciousness? Fitness is a function of consciousness. Consciousness is fundamental. Will be wonderful when science catches up.

[@artistcarl5970]

The scientists are inching along... yet continue to miss the obvious... they are still intellectualizing, and not doing the inside work which would allow them to perceive the obvious, without the filter they are starting to realize exists... which is precisely as you stated. ;-)

[@spacemanonearth]

Well just me, but consciousness is spirit, and not of a physical nature, nor does it ever evolve for it always is, and exists outside of space and time, perfect. Also, for me, Fitness is no more than a word for materialism. Science looks to this realm for its answers and it should. For in this manifested realm, all is either a wave or a particle, but where these do not exist, is where the All is, and it is that which has brought you forth. You are not of this realm, not a body, not a mind, not an ego, not awake, till you leave this place.

[@sundarex]

Consciousness is not fundamental. Prior to consciousness is awareness. The former is the son and the latter is the father. The son is the father but the father is not the son. The wise one will step out of consciousness even though it has the brilliance of a billion suns. Doing that, and few will dare to do that, is returning home - to the FATHER / SOURCE = extinguishing the candle flame.

[@moyontaamyllari1080]

@@artistcarl5970 Nothing's real so doesn't matter.

[@richardhall6762]

Joe Lee Splitting hairs. Awareness is an aspect of Consciousness as are Witnessing and Experiencing. So say the Mystics. Consciousness, or Awareness is indeed fundamental to life whether possessed of autonomy or not and the Mystics all agree it’s fundamental to existence. I can’t make a case for that ( no one can prove ‘God’ exists) yet it’s obvious that Consciousness is fundamental to the entire scientific enterprise in the sense that without it there cannot be perception or ‘observation’ if you like. Perhaps ‘a priori’ is better than to say ‘fundamental’.

[@NarenLumpkin]

If it does not mean objective truth then there is no objective truth.❤❤❤

[@cliffhregis]

23:57 “..It turns out…Stephen Hawking answered this" Somewhere in our holographic universe, Hooft and Susskind simultaneously rolled their eyes…lol

[@elisaquinzi2021]

i first learned that spacetime was not fundamental from seth in the seth books channelled by jane roberts most of which published in the 70's. donald's explanation that a chair is not "reality" but an interpretation of data aligns with seth's explanation that we perceive a chair as physical reality because this is the pitch that we are tuned into with our physical senses. seth also explains that the chair is not "only physical" but that there are versions of the chair that are less physical, and also more physical. our particular perception of our physical reality is due to pitch (or frequency) we are tuned into. also, that we can learn to tune into other realities, as we, and reality, are multidimensional.

[@davidgiles9378]

Hoffman’s ideas such as “space and time are illusions” make Tegmark’s “Consciousness as a State of Matter” seem like old school conservative paradigms in comparison. I find some aspects Hoffman’s theory interesting, and perhaps elements of it ‘may’ prove to be fruitful from a data analysis perspective. Meanwhile, the overall conclusion - as he admits-isn’t even something that physics research typically deals with: namely the proposition that there is no objective reality that our consciousness can accurately perceive seems to delve into philosophy (like an extension of solipsism to include ‘other conscious agents’ using quantum information theory as a framework). Philosophical concepts like this tend to revolve around language meanings, and as such may be untestable at an objective quantitative macroscopic level, and by testing I mean something beyond optical illusions. Having said that, kudos to this guy for even having the cahones to propose something that extrapolates John Wheeler’s conscious realism (it from bit) and then actually develop methods of research to flesh it out. Evolution appears to select for fitness over accurate perception, to the degree that whatever helps one to procreate is the only essential driving element - that part seems mainstream. The conscious agents forming networks aspect is the part that I’m guessing could generate the most interest within the scientific community. But I think there are lots of logical inconsistencies that need to be ironed out. The real proof of his pudding might be showing how consciousness which consists of perceptions from incoming data as well as internally generated...how is it that a consciousness being so full of inaccurate representations, regardless if just one or linked, can do all this projecting of ‘inaccurate yet useful objects’ onto external reality (he referred to external realty as digital rain). Also where is this consciousness originating from if the brain as we commonly think of it is only a useful representative symbol but essentially an illusion? Consciousness is the fundamental player in a game that only cares about procreating with other conscious agents per Hoffman, to the degree that consciousness will create a functional overlay that we recognize as day to day external reality. Seems like a hella lot of matrix thrown in there but without any brain to even plug into since that would exist in spacetime, which he also thinks is an illusion. He focuses on what consciousness does and never seems to flesh out what it is, other than stating it’s purpose is to procreate, and it utilizes functions to do that (or is he only saying he can reduce what it does to a function?). He tells us consciousness is the only fundamental layer of reality. He makes clear that any external realty regardless of paradigm shift is merely another illusion when he described Neo as breaking free of the matrix only to exist in yet another one. My takeaway is he views consciousness as networked solipsism which emerged to further the evolutionary goal of procreating. In contrast, in describing his information theory approach to consciousness, Tegmark said consciousness is what it feels like to process information. Tegmark never suggests that external reality and spacetime are mere inaccurate symbolic representations humans have made up along the way to help us reproduce. As far as our brains becoming smaller as we form larger networks with other conscious agents - that wouldn’t be appear to be a positive development if true (?), since only brains of sufficient intellectual capacity appear well suited to taking humanity beyond the current era of ‘existential risk’ of extinction. Since evolution is no longer at the wheel in some future crispr scenarios, it will be possible to fine tune brains beyond the job of procreation. The impacts of human genetic engineering whether positive or negative relative to the overall well being of the species and the environment would easily eclipse any previous quirky evolutionary noise artifacts that have resulted in human minds being vulnerable to accepting inaccurate or inconsistent information, as with the optical illusions for example.

[@liamlieblein6375]

Speaking to your implicit question at the beginning of this, i.e. 'what is consciousness in this theory?', I think I could give a stab at trying to pin a nature to the reality he describes. Think again about his demonstration of the densification of information by condensing a large object into several interconnected smaller objects (the spheres). As he said, this could be done recursively, down and down and down. You could imagine it also going up and up and up. This is similar to the idea of 'turtles all the way down' or simulation and simulacra if you're familiar with either. Next, we consider the idea that reality is a network of conscious agents. These conscious agents are information processors, which both perceive and act on other information processors. We can perhaps consider them to be clusters of interconnected balls which recursively continue 'all the way down'. Of course, both if these clusters would also be part of the large ball they are contained within, and this would also apply to that ball etc. Ultimately, there is no way to distinguish between levels, all is One yet Many. If this is representative of reality, we could say that consciousness is a fractal information processor, an infinitely dense self-recursive pattern which processes other infinitely dense self-recursive patterns (which ultimately cannot be distinguished from one another, they are both a part of Reality with a capital R). I have no idea if he's thought this far in, but I find it to be a compelling extension of his ideas which (admittedly) are made coherent with my own. This would bring rational, scientific truth in line with irrational, mystical truth through the binding of conscious agency. There is much much more to be said, but this is already a long comment. Hope you find this useful/interesting, all the best :)

[@yoooyoyooo]

The thing with the information on the ball blew my mind a little. I kids knew that but I never understood it in that way.

[@moesypittounikos]

How do dreams fit into Hoffman's model? Dreams are also projections of the mind. If this universe is a shared 'x', and the dream is a personal 'x', then who is the dreamer?

[@G_Singh222]

@UCwahOjaUd8APpXN7u5EQi3g Truth hurts doesn’t it ? That’s why you’re attacking him personally, what a pussy move.

[@OrbitTheSun]

The _concept of time_ and the _concept of space_ are felt and are dependent on the mind. Time and space in themselves, on the other hand, are necessary for evolution, without which there would be no mind. Thus, _space_ and _time_ are more fundamental than the _concepts of space and time._ Thus, space and time are more fundamental than mind.

[@danielpaulson8838]

Agreed. Anyone stepping back for a look at the big picture would know we are products of the universe and not the other way around.

[@cmarqz1]

Einstein was challenging the dominant view (i.e., Copenhagen interpretation) that quantum mechanical systems lack definite objective properties (e.g., position), independent of observation. He used the moon to emphasize the apparently absurd consequences of this view .

[@ryanashfyre464]

@@ruthkastner6248 Respectfully, you misunderstand the argument. When one says "the Moon is only there when we look at it," it means that the physical form of the Moon that we recognize doesn't actually exist at all. We're overlaying the true reality (a vastly more complex and unintelligible one, at least to our minds) with a drastically simplified version that we can then make use of. To be sure, comparing this to an icon on a desktop isn't a perfect comparison, but it's close enough to let people wrap their minds around it. The point is that humans have always needed to simplify things in order to make broad use of them. And so, frankly, the idea that our primitive monkey brains have evolved enough to take in the scope of reality itself as it truly exists is quite arrogant.

[@ryanashfyre464]

@@ruthkastner6248 If that's all you meant, then this is little more than semantics and not particularly useful to the broader argument, whether one agrees with it or not.

[@ryanashfyre464]

@@ruthkastner6248 Respectfully, don't be absurd. I fully concede I like the man, and that's precisely why I want him to be subject to as much reasonable criticism as possible. How else are his ideas supposed to get any stronger? My problem with your criticism is that, insofar as I understand it, you're basically saying that the underlying structure that we interpret as the Moon is the same as the Moon itself. I wholly disagree with this interpretation. Hypothetically, let's say I have free reign to alter the Moon's code and change it into any form I choose. Maybe I turn it into a giant chunk of cheese for kicks. Its fundamental element wouldn't have changed at all, but would you or anyone else look up at a massive ball of cheese in the sky and see it as anything like the Moon you knew? Of course not.

[@ryanashfyre464]

@@ruthkastner6248 If your only point is to say that Dr. Hoffman should've been clearer in his remarks, then that's fine. My only point is your continuous harping serves nothing to the larger argument. Frankly, this was my point right from the start - and that you can't seem to let it go says much more about you than it does about me or Dr. Hoffman.

[@ruthkastner6248]

​@@ryanashfyre464 That's funny, since you were the one who couldn't let a minor criticism go. You claimed that it was based on a misunderstanding and I simply clarified why there was no misunderstanding, but you still couldn't let it go, and now you launch an ad hominem re 'harping'. In any case, I've deleted those comments since they upset you so much. It's really not that important. I hope you feel better now. Have a great day!

[@genus.family]

Following him since the beginning. Donald is a simply pure genius.

[@parthibannavoo1837]

The ancient Indian didn’t have such as sophisticated terminology or model as Prof Hoffman to explain but merely using concept prevalent to the masses then

[@krisc6216]

The Matrix is not a movie, it's a documentary

[@decid3]

Absolutely agree.

[@andrewclancy8834]

Any relation to the Hoffman who first made LSD? Both Hoffman's have similar effects

[@0101-s7v]

The most impressive thing is that screen projector. Man that thing is bright!

[@G_Singh222]

Yes, and what is more impressive is the fact that consciousness is fundamental (can you imagine a immaterial part of reality?)

[@longyearsbehind]

Many of new theories leading to eastern philosophy of thousands years

[@KibyNykraft]

Nikola Tesla already knew all this. But explained it as "light energy"-plasma fluctuations in the aether.

[@aydnofastro-action1788]

longyearsbehind you should read Schopenhauer, he is the most eastern of western philosophers.

[@drewmandan]

How does Eastern philosophy deal with sin and evil? Western religion explains it quite readily as the absence of God. Is there an Eastern equivalent to this notion of sin, evil, suffering, etc., to be an absence of something?

[@aydnofastro-action1788]

nbfdmd the answer to that would take years of reading. First of all, there are various eastern religions and philosophies. They are not all the same. Jospeh Campbell. The hero’s with a thousand faces is a good place to start a study of comparative mythology. Audio version called The Hero’s Journey, I recommend.

[@poncholarpez6233]

@@drewmandan absence of union. Jung shadow integration

[@qedqubit]

regarding the cube at 19 minutes in the video, what boggles my mind is that counting in binary enumerates dimensionality 1D, 2D, 3D ,and so on, like: 1D= 0,1 , 2D= 00,01,10,11 the corners of a plane, and 3D 000,001,010,011,100,101,110,111 the vertices of a cube. it goes on to 4D and further.

[@arc6fire]

i found it a little offputting and suspect that when questioned by audience member that a decrease in volume of the brain doesnt exclude the possibility that the surface area increased, he didnt answer the question(which the audience member correctly pointed out)....i thought it was quite shady in a way, why not just admit that could be a possibility if he didnt know? would also have loved to see q&a for this talk.....the audience seemed pretty switched on

[@mrsbethaniesmith]

Yeah it was weird, like wouldn't that have went right along with his lecture as well? 🤷🏿‍♀️

[@areyouavinalaff]

14:33 Hoffman is asked to define his term "fitness", for anyone else wondering. I've watched a few videos with Hoffman speaking on this topic now and for the first time I understand what he means by "fitness". Thanks for asking, Lady.

[@winkyshy2]

i am aware of Einsteins dilemma about the moon. i have found that it is there at all times, but you have to sneak up on it when not looking.

[@sngscratcher]

It's no dilemma, really. It's not there, whether we're looking at it or not. Lol.

[@Tziguene]

I thought that only worked for rainbows.

[@joaovox]

The moon "is" there but the ocean "sees" it better than us...

[@edenmolinar2086]

this is the reason why a government that is run by the rich and corporate elite must be removed with one that will function in teaching true education that will enhance our understanding rather than let the system keep us ignorant of these fundamentals early on in our youth.

[@screentake01]

or how about another solution? how about parents pay for their children to attend the school that the elite children attend and then everyone can learn "true" education.

[@optimisticintegration1553]

The story about Einstein and the moon comment has been misrepresented. He wasn't suggesting that the moon didn't exist when we weren't looking at it. He was arguing about experiments and conclusions involved with quantum theory which he disagreed with. He was saying that to believe the moon wasn't there when you weren't looking at it was an absurd idea.

[@Yoda-j3r]

This is so in sync with the non-dual Vendantic literature, absolutely brilliant!

[@lizmcnay]

Pretty please discuss how this interacts with the double slit experiments, the Schrödinger effect, and the Hawthorne effect. I have always believed this. I got there because people have vastly different perspectives. Expect a large percentage of people to be upset by colors like teal if you ask whether it's blue, or green. If we create everything, like the moon in your talk, it does explain the double slit experiments differences on being viewed.

[@AndyJarman]

Liz I got to this video by watching Paul Vanderclay's video 'Did God exist before people'. Paul's video links to another video about the double slit experiment which might interest you. I only have an IQ in the mid 130s and no physics training but my understanding is as follows. The fact that we can determine the photon's apparent past (change the past) is because we are compelled by our nature to construct a present that requires the past to have happened in a certain way. Like the colours on the hat in the video above, we require reality to appear to us in a certain way by the way we measure/ perceive it. This goes way down to a very deep level of perception. The idea of time and the idea of space are both boxes we have been provided with. Reality isn't 'actually' composed of time and space. This infers that reality is not as we perceive it, but that in order for us to perceive anything we have to fit it into the boxes we have been provided with by evolution. Our ideas about what reality is are just metaphors, or icons on a computer screen. The moon is our way of understanding and dealing with the 'effect' we witness and call the moon. To another species ( a plant or a bacteria) the moon may be imperceptible. Some say planting seeds during a full moon ensures better crops. Perhaps to a seed the moon is perceived as 'goodness' in the same way that a mother's milk is perceived as 'goodness' by a baby. At this level of perception both milk and moon are indistinguishable. If you are human, this metaphor falls apart after a few months of life outside the womb. But the dissolution is never complete. Mother's milk remains an incorruptible concept throughout our lives, and the moon remains a symbol of love. There is an objective reality, it's just that evolution isn't in the business of creating beings that need to perceive it. We are equipped with a clunky version of reality like an early arcade video game that enables us to perpetuate and survive. Only reason has given us a rare insight into 'the matrix'.

[@davidwilkie9551]

"The Matrix" movie is like the actual Hologram, it cannot be some other operating system, even as an idea only. "Conscious Agents" in the context of Actuality is equivalent to the meaning of coherent cohesion objectives in pulsed geometries of e-Pi-i interference positioning singularity/hologram resonance. Absolute meaning of computation is cause-effect/Time Duration Timing. Excellent lecture

[@theweirdingwaypodcast]

The best model for spacetime may not be mathematical, but purely visual. Eg the planet earth itself is actually spacetime. We calibrate all other motion from here. All aspects of the earth express spacetime as consciousness. If we used a visual system to express this continuous transformation then our mental awareness would match our physical experience which may aid humans to make better sense of our non dualistic reality. The present math / numerical based system may be a cause of the separation between facts and irrational projections. The analemma shows the temporal distortion that we have to undo to find our actual situation. It shows that clock times can be up to 16 minutes out of sync with our senses. Food for thought.

[@mrsbethaniesmith]

I don't think I understand your post, but I like it

[@adamrafferty]

Actually, I just did a screenshot of 6:19 - and in photoshop I took the eyedropper tool and checked - the shades do differ slightly.

[@danbyrne6453]

It's probably the codec that the KZbin video was converted to.

[@brianfontenot9925]

you would have to reproduce it in photoshop to test that. A screenshot will differ due to colorspace and compression etc of the screenshot

[@xNazgrel]

It's a slide captured with a camera

[@vmasing1965]

Fascinating theory. 80% of the comments here are asking _Is there any evidence for this?_ You can't express more clearly that you didn't understand a word of it. Yeah, I know I know, humans don't like to admit that. Makes them feel insecure or somesuch nonsense. What a pity...

[@darrylknox5919]

But you got it...

[@zentex8877]

Great lecture. Gives me something to chew on for a while.

[@ericarmstrong8561]

I disagree with why brains are smaller.... computers use to take up alot of space, now they don't. Efficiency

[@kevinhanley3023]

Maybe, the speaker didn't offer data, only a speculative cause

[@tomrhodes1629]

Brains that are getting more efficient could not make choices like we are making, because we would not have survived to get to today. Case in point: Brains that elected a Franklin D. Roosevelt and then a John F. Kennedy, if they were they getting more efficient, could not possibly elect a Donald J. Trump. Declining efficiency is apparent......

[@aquamarine99911]

If you follow the raging vegan vs. low carb debate/rabbit hole on youtube, then there is an alternate theory that the paleo side might propose. The agricultural diet - i.e. grains and legumes - may have made our brains contract. Certainly the excavated bone evidence is that the introduction of agriculture 10-12 thousand years ago was disastrous to human health, although it was a lot more convenient than the hunter/gatherer lifestyle.

[@isthisshit4real]

@@tomrhodes1629 - That has nothing to do with brain size. IQs are going up. Which means the propaganda and psyops against the unwashed masses is MUCH better than it used to be.

[@mrsbethaniesmith]

That's not what the speaker is saying?

[@charlesbrightman4237]

For me: "Space" is energy itself. Wherever space is, energy is. Wherever energy is, space is. "Time" is the flow of that energy. In addition, my current idea concerning the TOE is that gravity is a part of the photon and the pulsating photon is the energy unit of this universe. Revised TOE: 3/25/2017. My Current TOE: THE SETUP: 1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism. 2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too). 3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them. 4. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them. 5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them. FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO: 6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field. 7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field. 8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality. 9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between electrons and protons. 10. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary. 11. Quarks also supposedly have a charge to them and then would also most likely have electro-magnetic fields associated with them, possibly a different arrangement for each of the six different type of quarks. 12. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do. THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA: 13. Personally, I currently believe that the directional force in photons is "gravity". It's the force that makes the sine wave of EM energy go from a wide (maximum extension) to a point (minimum extension) of a moving photon. When the EM gets to maximum extension, "gravity" flips and EM goes to minimum, then "gravity" flips and goes back to maximum, etc, etc. A stationary photon would pulse from it's maximum extension to a point possibly even too small to detect, then back to maximum, etc, etc. 14. I also believe that a pulsating singularity (which is basically a pulsating photon) is the energy unit in this universe. 15. When these pulsating energy units interact with other energy units, they tangle together. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe. 16. When the energy units unite together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate. 17. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure. 18. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons). THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY: 19. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up. 20. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency. 21. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies. NOTES: 22. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 23. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 24. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well. 25. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM with the energy unit, this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now. Of which with the current theory of understanding, how come the forces of nature haven't evolved by now since the original conditions acting upon the singularity aren't acting upon them like they originally were, billions of years have supposedly elapsed, in a universe that continues to expand and cool, with energy that could not be created nor destroyed would be getting less and less dense? My theory would seem to make more sense if in fact it is really true. I really wonder if it is in fact really true. 26. And the universe would be expanding due to these pulsating and interacting energy units and would also allow galaxies to collide, of which, how could galaxies ever collide if they are all speeding away from each other like is currently taught? DISCLAIMER: 27. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty.

[@graememudie7921]

Very similar idea to Tom Campbell's my big T.O.E. It looks like others are coming round to his ideal of how the world we live in is constructed.

[@tomrhodes1629]

This is a VR simulation,. And if you want to know HOW and WHY, give me a "click"....

[@fredlettuce7962]

Anyone suggest a link refuting this? Thanks

[@I2yantheGreat]

this guys need to be on the joe rogan podcast

[@neoistheI]

Rogan doesn't seem much of a sympathizer of this way of looking at things. This is validating the work of people like Chopra whom Rogan thinks is nuts. But I too like Hoffman's theory.

[@emmanuelweinman9673]

we don’t see reality as it is because we see it as it was, is, and could be. I wonder if the lines between past, present, and future are also a construction.

[@kennethzeller1346]

Also read the diamond sutra. It deals with contradictory ideas of reality.

[@ryanprice9841]

This is tempting and consistent on many levels, but it begs the question of how did consciousness come to be if the universe that it seems like creates it came second?

[@rseyedoc]

It has simply always been, but that isn't quite right since space-time is illusory. Buddhism calls this "dharmakaya" - the ground consciousness out of which all arises (and vanishes).

[@stevecoley8365]

Time is space. Not the emptiness that surrounds the stars. The more full life is the faster we travel through a space called time. The more miserable we are... the slower time goes by. The roadrunner knows this. The clever coyote does not.

[@rdallas81]

It's all perspective.

[@rdallas81]

Time has an arrow. The arrow of time. It goes in one direction. Things "break down" eventually. Put a drop of food coloring in a glass of water.....I promise it will always dissipate throughout the water. It will never do the opposite. Not in this universe or some unfound parallel universe. Same goes for energy. Ever heard of "entropy" ? Look it up. It kind of has something to do with the "arrow" of time. If you want to dig into this a bit more, look into it, as well as "reference frames" and how we calculate time. Another cool thing is how time changes depending on the gravitational field. It is very measurable, just ask some satellites or the crews that were manning the space stations! GPS would not work if it were not for the time calculation!

[@screentake01]

🤣🤣🤣 good one, steve~

[@BROWNDIRTWARRIOR]

Reality itself is a conscious agent and we are conduits, receptacles whose complex circuitry channels these energies to give us higher levels of consciousness. This is made evident in how evolution takes place. This mysterious thing we call adaptation is pure consciousness itself telling the organism what to do at the genome level, encoding instructions on the DNA to grow longer limbS to climb trees better, or a longer snout for probing, etc. This is how nearly blind organisms like some nudibranchs in the oceans have spectacular colors but can hardly see to appreciate them. The colors evolved for camouflage, entirely independent of the organism simply "adapting" independently to it's environment; its environment, and all its constituent parts are also conscious and aiding in the process. Everything that exists is a manifestation of absolute consciousness. An organism does not physically evolve by adapting mechanically, independent of an enveloping consciousness enabling that evolution; there is a deep mystery at work here that has not been broached by Darwin OR his predecessors. This concept need not be esoteric, for Holism has a deeper definition beyond interconnectedness of physical objects in nature, we are in fact immersed in a conscious, oscillating, goo or foam, defined currently as quantum fluctuation in particle physics - the underlying dictate of all things in nature -- even space itself. It is as fundamental to nature as water is to fish. The "nothingness" that fundamental particles borrow energy from to pop into existence, is actually pure consciousness. So when native cultures said that even rocks have spirits, this is the light of higher consciousness providing them insights into the engine of creation... at a fundamental level.

[@00TimberDoodle]

Woah, Jeff Goldbloom just blew my mind

[@my1creation]

Now I can’t unhear it 😆

[@danielpaulson8838]

I got his book and really got into this. After a lot of reading and listening, it never emerges as anything more than a fringe theory. Like Tom Campbell, MBTOE. Fun and fringe.

[@tomaswilliamson9685]

If you can find an authentic teacher, the meticulous logic and reasoning of Advaita Vedanta (uh dwy tuh vay dawn tuh) might satisfy the doubts you are having.

[@alien8treker2]

It seems contradictory that on the one hand, our perceptions are designed to simplify the extreme complexity of "reality", while on the other, with the advent of social networking, evolutionary selection has diminished our capacity to manage that complexity. Our current perceived reality is far more complex than that of our distant ancestors, but somehow lacks the selection pressure necessary to maintain our fitness to function within it. How has evolution selected lower cerebral capacity as a solution to the greater complexities we experience today?

[@livthedream91]

Positive Outlook Because fitness = reproductive success. Adaptation is a little different but the selective pressures that usually determine survival (available resources and extreme temperature or other environmental pressures) haven’t changed that much...yet.

[@livthedream91]

Also, I’m not convinced that we’re getting less intelligent at all. It could be that we made certain cerebral trade offs, I.e., short term memory and spatial skills versus long term narrative memory and advanced “higher order” linguistic and mathematics skills. Brain size isn’t intelligence.

[@alien8treker2]

@@livthedream91 You're probably right, but I'm impressed with the accomplishments of past notables like Archimedes and Newton, using only a pencil and their wits.

[@livthedream91]

Positive Outlook Yeah. I do worry about our modern tendency, and how little we actually have to creatively negotiate our environment. I thought you were referencing the past four thousand years or so of agriculture. I’m open to all sides of the argument, but this guy doesn’t strike me quite right. I’m not sure why... . I mean, I’ve definitely had experiences that challenge space-time as a fixed property, and tend toward a weak pan psychos myself. But I respect things like objects, force, gravity. Maybe I’m not understanding his message. I think I’ll need to watch this a few times.

[@livthedream91]

^^pan psychism^^. The idea that consciousness is pre-eminent and material organizes in varied constructions through evolutionary processes makes sense to me.

[@gwm54]

Hoffman states that 3D space and time, as we perceive them, is the desktop; physical objects are merely the icons on your species-specific desktop. I’m wondering, when he says “physical objects”, does he mean, any objects of perception through our 5 senses, or just visual objects? I suspect he means any and all objects of perception, but some clarification would be good

[@exsoteric]

This will become the new paradigm, and from it will emerge a new science, a new religion and a new man. First there was Relativity, then Quantum and String theory, but Conscious Agent theory (concepts) will replace them all.

[@abstubeindia6979]

This religion already exists and it's the religion of Indians. You people call it "Hinduism". There is whole library of books related to it called vedanta and Upanishads.Tries to explain who am I

[@osterlaich6395]

Nah not really its just a rebranding of the observer in quantum mechanics.

[@maccabeus3843]

Spacetime is form and forms are ideas. Energy is structure and structure is relation. Finally all we have is idea and relation.

[@kiDchemical]

This is very similar to Kant’s metaphysics

[@StevenLeoKorell]

Why is it so refreshing to hear someone say "couldn't care less" correctly 😅

[@ckaz007]

My brain shrunk, after thousands of brain cells burst, trying to understand this lecture.

[@sundarex]

So go within to your Heart of Love. Remain there long enough and all knowledge will come to an end and then the true magic begins. It's been said that the musk deer would run after that enchanting musky scent his whole life, thinking that the scent exists out there in the WORLD and not realizing that he is veritably the one producing the scent - from his OWN ABDOMEN!!

[@jessegandy4510]

I hope nonduality is a true description of reality, but it's awfully counterintuitive. Matter is way more likely to be fundamental. And consciousness is also way more likely to be the emerging byproduct of a working brain.

[@just2share]

Comments (not mine) from researcher of AGI (Artificial General Inteligence): 1:16 Failure to understand abstraction. 2:00 Failure to understand focus. 5:00 Failure to understand symbology 7:00 Failure to understand bandwidth limitations and sparse representation. 9:00 Change blindness (along with focal blindness) are things I studied. He doesn’t seem to understand their significance or importance. 12:00 Failure to understand environmental orientation. His claim that only the center is “decoded” is incorrect. 12:40 I have no idea where he got the claim that our brains were bigger 20,000 years ago. The brain volume of Neanderthal was a bit bigger. Maybe he is getting these confused. Okay, I checked into this. Early estimates were indeed based on Neanderthal brain volume which was distinctly visually adapted. Trying to find something limited to Homo Sapiens is quite difficult. For example, this is from a 1988 study which to my knowledge is the largest study with 12,800 skulls examined: “Since brain size in humans, as in other mammals, is strongly correlated with body size through shared growth regulators, the hypothesis is advanced that the decrease in CC during Holocene is a by-product of a generalized structural reduction known as gracilization of the skeleton. Therefore, the observed decrease in CC may not be a result of the direct operation of selection upon brain morphology.” 13:30 His rationalization about skill is ridiculous. He is in fact just parroting one of the hypotheses put forward. This is confirmation bias. 16:45 This is pathetic. He is getting into pseudo-philosophy and trying to call it objective science. I’ve detected a steady decline in my opinion of Hoffman since the beginning of this video. 20:00 This is getting worse. What is his background? Quantitative and computational psychology. Quantitative psychology is a field of scientific study that focuses on the mathematical modeling, research design and methodology, and statistical analysis of human or animal psychological processes. ~ That looks okay. Computational cognition (sometimes referred to as computational cognitive science or computational psychology) is the study of the computational basis of learning and inference by mathematical modeling, computer simulation, and behavioral experiments. In psychology, it is an approach which develops computational models based on experimental results. It seeks to understand the basis behind the human method of processing of information. ~ And we know that Hoffman was involved with Artificial Intelligence research. That’s an obvious source of error. 21:00 This clown has no idea what Hamming code is. 24:00 The holographic principle. ~ Today we observe a prime example of a Dunning Kruger meltdown where the subject’s confidence in his understanding vastly exceeds his actual understanding. 26:30 This is getting worse. Not long ago I wanted to replace the main steering gear on my Cub Cadet riding mower. When I looked this up online everyone said that it was so difficult they wouldn’t attempt it. I did replace the gear but it took 8 hours. On a properly designed mower you can replace the gear in 30 minutes. So, I said it was as though the mower was designed by chimpanzees with a learning disability. My opinion of Hoffman at this point is similar. 28:44 Hoffman cites Hawks as proof of his conjecture. However, Hawks’ work only goes back 4,000 years and his numbers don’t match. When Hawks does claim a 10% reduction he uses Neanderthal brain volume. 29:50 Hoffman has no understanding of evolutionary theory. He is trying to substitute an altered version that supports his conjecture. The question at this point is if my opinion of Hoffman can get any lower or whether it has hit bottom. 33:00 “What you sense is not real, but what I speculate about what I sense that isn’t real is actually real . . . just because.” ~ Sure Donald, that makes a lot of sense. Hoffman keeps mentioning Chaitin, so let’s look him up. Gregory John Chaitin: Chaitin also writes about philosophy, especially metaphysics and philosophy of mathematics (particularly about epistemological matters in mathematics). In metaphysics, Chaitin claims that algorithmic information theory is the key to solving problems in the field of biology (obtaining a formal definition of 'life', its origin and evolution) and neuroscience (the problem of consciousness and the study of the mind). ~ I see. This doesn’t bode well for Hoffman. 35:00 Space and time and physical objects have no causal powers. ~ Dunning-Kruger overdrive. Hoffman is the coyote running full speed into a painted tunnel.

[@ZalexMusic]

the desperate musings of an angry materialist

[@just2share]

@@ZalexMusic why?

[@alloneword154]

Interesting to hear the evolution aspect brought into the reality conversation

[@stulee986]

there is no "reality as it is" there is no reality as such, there is only reality as we perceive it, and different lifeforms perceive reality differently. so physical objects only exist when being observed. if the universe does not exist without an observer it can only mean one thing : that reality is an illusion because it's a simulation, but not a man made one, it's made from pure consciousness. but if I'm in an empty room and I close my eyes, everything in the room doesn't disappear because we can identify it using other senses like touch and smell.

[@joshemm4991]

Spheres within spheres stores more data in a smaller space, but that is not data-compression. Improving the storage container (like getting a bigger hard drive) only compresses the data if you stretch vocabulary to suit this user. The sequence of the data makeup has not changed. I don't mind the usage, but today's usage of data-compression modifies the data so more will fit into the exact same previous container.

[@mollyclock8238]

you are speaking over the heads, of so many people, that if you were to become aware, of just how many, don't, understand, you, would be, floored.....m..

[@drsalka]

mind'blown. just what i needed today

[@shadowartist8892]

He's just analyzing what artists have always done.

[@engelbertus1406]

I would go as far to state that that which thinks it is an autonomous self, using it's mind-body interface to perceive it's personally distilled version of reality, is in and of itself part of the interface too. In this sense, we might think of what a human Turing test would look like: what can we do to ourselves to check which part is just interface, and what remains to be real relative to itself. The interface creating the test, performing it and either or not passing it, is a test within the frame of the interface. If you think this through, there is no way to use our interface to determine a reference point of 'realness', and even if the interface uses a definition of realness, to test it's own realness upon, the definition is relative and the test therefore unreliable. When it comes to what is real and true, only presences/agents/elements/aspects that don't need to relate or refer to anything outside themselves can be real and true. They define realness, because their realness IS their realness, and doesn't need any definition or context to be present in. Consciousness obscures itself by being omni-present without showing itself - it's the perfect non-lineair natural algorithm paradox: it doesn't need to exist in relation to anything, to be fundamental and everything. Consciousness can only be observed with consciousness, because it is undividable and unrelatable. Everything in perceived reality is an interface: our human-mind-body-self interface is not separated from the reality it believes to exist in: objects or not icons: they are the same interface and need consciousness to be fundamental to perform their interface task. A spoon is a material interface with consciousness choosing it to obey it's interface rules. To come full circle: consciousness is NOT thinking or intelligence, or a persona, a soul, a self, an ego or an intuition - these are all just very clever designs of the interface - the only thing the interface needs is to be embedded in consciousness. Even non-living things, as a dead human body, still are an interface of decomposing materials, with consciousness projecting itself into it to be a part of reference-reality.

[@mrsbethaniesmith]

I like your explanation

[@zentex8877]

Are there really any living or non-living “things”?

[@earthwormjj]

This guy sounds so much like Jeff goldblum !

[@terrythetuffkunt9215]

JJ Stubbs he is the voice from hawkings wheelchair

[@silencedoogood3581]

@@terrythetuffkunt9215 He sounds like one of those spelling machines..

[@silberlinie]

What you say here has always been a matter of course for other cultures. The Vedas, which originated in Hinduism, report in their cosmology and in their explanation of the world amazingly similar wisdom. That the entire Being, including the material and spiritual phenomena, is the dream of a superior Something.

[@raisingconsciousness777]

Exactly. I study A Course in Miracles, another non-dual teaching, and it's the same.

[@MrDFlexer]

What about the place of cataclysm? This image of gradual evolution has been disproven. Punctuated equilibrium. There are mass die offs, at which time rapid mutations take place. This vision of evolutionary fitness seems a little dated.

[@otarshavadze9178]

"Greatest trick from main programmer is make you believe, that he doesn't exists"

[@larrytruelove7112]

His comparisons between humans and computer desktops are only illusions.

[@romanszefler7479]

LOL his presentation its only his illusion

[@janhendrik5112]

'To stay alive'...hm...why then is it so important to keep us alive? That's the question.

[@aduralkain]

Very interesting! But if spacetime is not fundamental, "fitness" can't be fundamental either. I think the new theory should get rid of utitilarian notions like fitness (which as Hoffman explains is a very complicated function of the state of the world and the organism, etc., which again shows it's not fundamental) and adopt some more abstract notion like creativity. All spiritual teachings I know say that creativity is a fundamental dimension of reality, probably as fundamental as consciousness itself. To explain that we all seem to have similar perceptions of the world we don't need to resort to evolutionary explanations (we are similar organisms, the product of a long evolution, etc.), but realize that on some (mostly unconscious) level we all share one same awareness or consciousness.

[@leonwillett4645]

right! I like Roger Castillo's term "pure potentiality" too. It's a-causal, fundamental, without reason, etc....

[@binra3788]

Fit for purpose - allows a fitting in with a wholeness - even when expressing in appearances of conflicting or competing parts. The usurping of a true whole-part recognition is the idea of separate powers in a separate 'world'. The Creative can be 'sacrificed' to mythology - but only while the focus in such a role is fed or supported by a sense of purpose accepted meaningful. The purpose in establishing such an experience is having the experience for what it yields. But when that purpose itself yields to true creative being - the definitions that frame an UN-fitting and un-fit reality rise to be re-evaluated in terms of resonance and relevance to the true of you. Nothing (no one) else can fit your part BUT you. But I agree. taking parts of the new wine perspective and yet stuffing them into old paradigm bottles is a way to make more time - or delay recognition and appreciation for being - in sacrifice to some idea of a future becoming - set by a past conditioning. Creative is being. But patterns of conditioned response operate the same 'choice' as if a freedom to choose apart from and without the Creator-Nature of all being. Love wists where it will - but it is not random - though of course our reality experience includes experience of what seems random within a limited framework. Unconsciousness is in fact the shadow of what is assigned and accepted to consciousness. Stuffing reality 'out of mind' is a clever way to seem to create a separate mind. Clever because it is not a true creation that extends shared Conscious Reality - but rather a derivative of a conflicted or contradictory idea. The persistence and propagation of idea given focus is natural enough - and yet the compulsive dictate of fear and its derivatives is not the true movement of support for being. Until yielded to the Creative, mind usurps everything. That was its job description when we thought to climb into the movie frame. Investment in (or suppression of) outcomes via force, rather than unfolding of being through communication (on all levels and dimensionalities of being). The latter remains true while the former seems to 'run the show' - but seeming requires force to pass off as true - and thus all that would not 'fit' is suppressed, inhibited, denied and blanked to 'unconsciousness'. Forced reality is a private protection racket - that seems to share by enforcing compliance. In a sense everything experiencable is a 'reality' but not everything resonates relevant to who you are being the movement or focus of Now - and so accepting all of who you are will release some of what you thought true and accept the embrace of much that such a false sense denied (rendered unconscious). This is experienced as a shift of perspective from time to timeless and the conscious appreciation and gratitude for the sharing by which experience itself is beheld - or co-created. The floor disappears out from under and balance is uncovered within the flow of the whole. So in the extension of a true recognition and appreciation - we are not projecting the idea of conflict and then receiving its reflection as our world.

[@simonedefilippo6389]

Adur Alkain or like quality as in pirsing metaphysics of quality

[@justappearances]

very well said, but I think fitness is mentioned for a reason, after all that is what life is trying to do, to survive and reproduce and the idea of creativity is left behind (nonconscious) we all constantly create reality we observe, we just are not aware of it or forgot it. We all are an extension of the One source/awareness with a unique qualities we have developed over many experiences we've acquired. I think that was the idea since the beginning, to give up the most creative state we all came from to gain the experience of "good" and "evil". One cannot experience being lost if he knows he cannot get lost. But that does not mean we lost the creativity, we never did, we just left it to the awareness of our own selves which we are not conscious of(subconscious), this is where the idea of the Higher self comes from, and the existence of Quantum Observer (which collapses the wave function and projects the reality to the ego) has been suggested experimentally even by science, quantum mechanics.

[@YogiBearTruthbetold]

Seeking the truth as it relates to conscious life? Search *_Truth Contest_* and read the top entry called "The Present". This is truth you can and should check for yourself, this is truth the evidence says is true

[@justinandmaxgames5472]

Can the loss of brain size be the loss of sensory needs and not intelligence? As in the loss of an olfactory, visual, etc. parts due to the lack of need for these to forage in modern humans.

[@titaniumtiara4573]

“Timespace is not real.” 32:22 looks at watch

[@evfast]

I enjoyed the subtle promo for the movie Idiocracy.

[@just4now141]

We are not evolving... our atmosphere...surroundings...our physical realm....is changing

[@heyassmanx]

Very Schopenhauer-esque (minus the part of existence being miserable n all) Love your work tho, looking forward to more

[@seymoronion8371]

Who's job is it to constantly stare at the moon, so as to not disrupt the tides?

[@treeoflife3494]

Seymor Onion That's my job.

[@summondadrummin2868]

Its your turn Dude... Don't slack off! (Slight reference to a slack tide) :)

[@interwoven222]

The moon and tides, as we perceive them, is just a convenient way to represent them to ourselves and tell us nothing of their true nature. From the quantum view, while unobserved, they theoretically only exist as unobjective wave functions.

[@DanielRamBeats]

What he meant is that, to us these phenomena do occur and we cannot help but experience them as we perceive them to be, but behind the very nature of the gravitational forces which cause the tides and moon to exist exists a completely different reality than we could ever imagine. The truth of reality is beyond our ability to understand it because our best understanding of reality is always colouring that truth in a way that our bodies can't make use of it. Example is we do not see the gravitational waves, yet we have now instruments that can detect them. We have no body sensors that can feel this gravitational wave, but through an instrument we built that can sense it we can use readings that feed our sensors (eyes) with the information that allows us to corroborate the existence of the waves themselves. In this exact same way, the truth behind the very structure of reality itself is so far removed from any way we can sense it that it almost makes no sense to try and understand it. It's like a game character trying to understand it's existence, even if it understands that it is made of the same code that it's environment is made up of, how possible is it for the character to further understand that the code reflects 0 and 1's and then even more so that the 0 and 1 represent voltage fluctuations in some box that generates the code that eventually leads to the game world. This is what he is pointing at.. It's pretty deep.

[@jasonmathias5343]

Your brain creates your experience of the moon i.e the shape, color and so on. Your experience of how the moon is, isn't really what is there objectively. Its not how we see it, so when we look at it we construct the moon as we see it.

[@ColinBurkeMusic]

One point of critique- Our brains shrinking has nothing to do with whether or not the universe cares about intelligence or functional networks. You cannot make that claim based on a hypothesized single data point. The universe clearly does care about creating larger functional networks- because that’s what happens over time with all evolution. You really can’t claim anything else

[@bobaldo2339]

It is all quite logical, right up to the "conscious agents" bit.

[@DanielRamBeats]

Bob Aldo I used to think so too, but so much evidence points to the fact that physical reality is an illusion and spacetime itself is an emergent product of consciousness or conscious agents. Similar to how one single H2O means nothing but enough of them create a drop of water and even more create an entire ocean. There’s so many questions that one doesn’t even know where to start to ask... how is it that a conscious agent causes a collapse of a wave function, simply by being aware of whatever is being observed.

[@noisepuppet]

Daniel Ram more than that: physical reality as we know it through our perceptions and common sense is absolutely, for sure, an illusion. For example, there are no solid and persistent objects. It's just that for practical purposes (inclusive fitness, Reproductive Success), what does exist might as well be solid and persistent objects. It doesn't matter that it's not true. At the scope and scale of our everyday experience, reality functions as if it were true, in most but not all important ways. That's good enough for selection to shape our perceptions this way, just like other suboptimal aspects of our biological endowment. The world we perceive is the most computationally efficient model that lets us get our genes into subsequent generations, but it is not an accurate or comprehensive representation. That's virtually a truism.

[@l.rongardner2150]

I'm an expert in esoteric spiritual philosophy and Ayn Rand's Objectivism, and in my forthcoming book on nonduality and Mind-Only (due out in late 2023 or early 2024), I deconstruct most everything Hoffman says. For starters, reality is neither objective nor subjective; it just is. IOW, whatever exists, by definition, is real. Objective reality means describing existents free of subjective bias. Second, the senses are valid, as are sensorial extensions, in that they tell us something, anything, exists. It is up to the mind to properly interpret sense data. One can mistake a rope for a snake in the dark, but once the light is turned on, the mistake is corrected. To sum: reality is not an illusion, as Hoffman contends. Secondly, although I agree that Consciousness, or Mind, is fundamental, the Real, this does not reduce phenomenal reality to an illusion. Physical reality, spacetime, really exists as emanated energy and matter. It is "doomed," in its present form, since everything created is eventually destroyed. Hoffman, with his collaborators, claims he will be able to provide mathematical equations that describe consciousness, the immeasurable, timeless, spaceless Primitive. Mathematics is the science of measurement, but the Immeasurable cannot be measured. At best, he will only be able to describe state of consciousness, not consciousness itself. IOE, ripples in the Pond, but not the Pond itself.

[@hossskul544]

No my brain is not creating an illusion, you are manipulating light and color to create an allusion there two totally different things

[@mathewhill5556]

They manipulate the light spectrum of visible color to produce a specific effect within the visual cortex. The effect produced within the visual cortex is in fact a hallucination. If by hallucination you mean a visual phenomenon that isn't replicated in an objective space outside of your field of visual acuity.

[@heyassmanx]

Can you define how you're using the word allusion? I don't necessarily disagree, but the dictionary definition would already be presupposing certain things about perception

[@stvbrsn]

Hoss skul hey, you’re right! An *illusion* and an *allusion* are two different things. Yep, *They’re* two totally different things.

[@aydnofastro-action1788]

“All is Will to Power and nothing else.” - Neitszche